Rule #1 of Inverse Bullying - Attack the Big Guy

If you guys didn't check out the stupendously organized WriteOnCon, I encourage you to do so, the logged conference perfect for those without funds, time, or social skills (me, the latter).

Despite all the goodness to be found there (agent interviews, author commentaries, etc.), there was one thing that really torqued my jaw. One particular agent offered her time to critique queries via an online chat (full disclosure: mine was not in there). She offered some valuable feedback, but for queries she did not favor, she too often resorted to snark in her criticism (and, unfortunately, all too often, the ogling masses tittered along).

From my experiences, besides retribution, failure and superiority (artificially created or not) are the two largest factors that engender cruelty toward others, and this can be readily spurred on by the mob mentality. Humor, too often in our culture, is created via denigration of those without voice.

In the writing community, failure is a common tattered thread and quasi-superiority isn't far behind (ha, look at that poor schlep's query... starting with a rhetorical question... fool... and let's not get started on agents, gatherers of fawning wannabes who will lap up the milk no matter how spoiled it may be), so, as in comics' circles, we too often flay each other because, hell, we're thick-skinned (we've learned to be via all that damn rejection) and given all our experience (whether failure, success, or just exposure), we've earned the right, right?

If you want to be funny, be neutrally so, or self-deprecatingly so, or, if you must, do so at the expense of the giants to whom you are a mite on their callouses (...yes, I'm trying to vindicate my Stephenie Meyer jests here ;), but don't wreck the voiceless because it's too easy.

Snark, condescension, etc. is pyrite. It can be found in droves. Looks shiny, but scratch the surface and there's not much there. Look at the Nathan Bransfords and Mary Koles of the agent world, agents who have large online followings... achieved through generosity of insight and wit, wit that's sometimes wry, but never inhumanely directed.

As with zoos, don't feed the animals.

"YA" Boy Books: A Boy's Perspective

Still have intermittent access, but had to post on the reboiled hot button topic of last week (alerted to me by The Medicine Woman): the dearth of YA boy books.

Last week author Hannah Moskovitz's spirited post on the lack of YA boy books drew some strong attention within the Bransfordian writing community. This isn't the first time an author or WannAuthor has dressed down writers, publishers, etc, though it is probably one of the more well-constructed posts/rants on the topic.

While I believe Hannah's  (and others') points are well made, my take's a little different.

Boys, for the most part, do not want books that help them cope with their feelings, relate to the real world, etc. (i.e., much of the YA purview). At least not directly. We want escapism. We want to be the hero, save the world, blow up shit (lots of it - just ask Michael Bay). Sure, it's cool if the hero's got dyslexia and comes from a broken home (i.e., something we might be able to relate to), but that's secondary to story.

There are plenty of MG books geared toward boys, particularly in the fantasy (hero) arena, so why aren't there more YA "boy" books, at least in the world of make-believe? Um, there are. Just check out any ole Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Horror section. Chock full of books that would satisfy a large group of any-age boys. Some of us boys might grow up a bit faster and want those 'feeling' books where boy-centric 'YA' would definitely have a niche before we move onto the heavy hitters (Emerson, Thoreau, Joyce, and others beyond this dog's comprehension), but many of us don't want to explore our inner darkness just yet... or ever (I know, shocking). Lots of us will play video games til we're 50 and laugh at fart jokes til we die. Be glad if we learn to put the toilet seat down.

Anecdote: After I finished reading The Chronicles of Narnia in 3rd grade for the second or third time, I skipped right over the "YA" books to the "Adult" books. And while some of them truly were more adult (e.g., Duncton Wood), most of them were "kid" books.

Terry Brooks? David Eddings? Robert Jordan?... YA fantasy authors. Michael Crichton? Orson Scott Card? Yep, YA sci-fi. You want to label 'em, go ahead. Nothing like putting things in a box, right? But do that, and perhaps you don't go after the books next door by George R. R. Martin... definitely not kid books, but better written than many - more dynamic, more 3D characters (10 year olds and 80 year olds, males and females, all fucked up and human as can be).

Guess it comes down to do we want to protect our children or allow them to decide for themselves during their "YA" years? If the latter, stop wanting to label shit so damn narrowly. Yeah, the publishing industry wants to label everything YA (for girls) like the MPAA wants to make everything PG-13 (for boys), so we're confined to the game a bit, but let's not try to make everyone the quarterback.

Voice, Fuck Off

Seriously. You plague my head, you bastard catch-all phrase wielded by insiders as a shield. Didn't connect with the voice. Not feeling the voice. Great voice. Love the voice. Didn't connect with the voice. What does that mean? You know how to use sentence fragments? Inverse phrases? How 'bout snarky snarkiness so oft seen on blogs or urban words in a clever manner (like crozzled, Mr. McCarthy)?

Snark's easy voice. Dialogue's easy voice. Easily cultivated, grown, harvested, replanted. And razed.

Hard voice? Related to style? Flow? Rhythm (isn't that sort of like flow... uh oh)? How do you know when you've got it? Or do you ever? Is it something that comes easy or just seems to? According to "writing" books, you're not supposed to think about voice -- well, here's something for you, how 'bout you stop brining it up. Like saying don't look down. Assholes.

Voice, bane of my thoughts, I search for you hard, but until then, fuck off.